app_get_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the multi-instance selection algorithm (bridge status window owner, else the only visible window), the exact ambiguity failure mode (pid=None, ambiguous=True, reason populated, UI tools refuse), and that other_servers only produces warnings without stopping anything. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent could not derive from the empty parameter schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the return field list, with the more specialized multi-instance and multi-server caveats after. The trailing 'Returns: Dictionary with status information' is pure redundancy given the bulleted list and the output schema, and the bullets duplicate schema-documented fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status probe with an output schema, the description covers the parts the schema cannot: instance disambiguation, refusal behavior under ambiguity, and the advisory-only nature of other-server warnings. Nothing needed to call or interpret it is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter meaning to add or omit. The description instead spends its space on return-value semantics, which is appropriate here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Check if Altium Designer is running and get status information', then enumerates exactly what status means (running, PID, executable path, bridge attachment). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as app_ping, app_context, or app_diag_workspace, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a preflight/health check before invoking UI tools, and the note that 'every UI tool refuses' when ambiguous hints at the dependency. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing against app_ping, app_context, or app_get_version, and no stated preconditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.